Richard Shelby

The regime's use of terror in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, Golan, and elsewhere has strengthened its regional dominance.

As we negotiate a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran, we would be remiss if we did not heed the lessons from Alberto's exhaustive work.

The phrase is batted around a lot by this Administration and others that it is unacceptable--whatever that means--for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

The Administration seems to be chasing this deal, in other words, wanting a deal perhaps more than Iran wants a deal.

We cannot answer all those questions today, but I appreciate the panel today.

Nuclear negotiations are entering the sixth year for the United States and the 12th year for the Europeans, yet Western leverage has diminished.

Can you confirm that it is the United States' position, the State Department's position here, that Iran enjoys no such right under either Article 4 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or under any other provision or principle of law?

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran produced more than 500 additional kilograms of low-enriched uranium--that is a 7-percent increase in its holdings--between September and November of this past year alone.

I cannot imagine a higher risk versus reward scenario than this agreement.

I am concerned that Iran, which is designated by the State Department as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism for so many years, continues to derail negotiations based on its so-called right to develop nuclear technology.

Doesn't that mean that the Iranian Government is still trying to develop nuclear weapons even as we speak?

I respectfully disagree with the Administration on this.

Over the past few decades, a bipartisan consensus has emerged that tough sanctions are essential.

Iran has long been a serious threat to U.S. national security interests.

Without the pressure of tough sanctions, Iran would not have been engaged in any talks in the first place.

People should not be able, whoever they are, not just financial institutions, should be able to buy their way out of culpability.

The Justice Department seems bent on money rather than justice, you know, and that is a mistake and the American people pick up on that.

For years, our Nation's export and import sector has witnessed a number of methods used to evade and circumvent current trade laws.

Despite trade laws designed to protect against unfair practices, it is my understanding that dumping and subsidization of foreign products through circumventing the system have become increasingly common.

From past experience, we know that detention and rapid removal, following all appropriate due process, is an important deterrent to illegal crossing.

Well, I know money, it is a humanitarian problem, but it is an immigration problem, a big one for this country.

So even if we gave the money that has been requested here, $3.7 billion, it doesn't solve the problem in any way.

As we speak, what percentage of children that meet the adjudication process are sent home, and what percentage stay in the United States, currently?

Is it most of the time a family member?

We are against human trafficking for adults, children, everything like that.